D. Determining Whether Police Station Encounter is Voluntary vs. Arrest
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (plurality) (finding defendant "arrested" without probable cause where police took his airline ticket, driver's license, and luggage to police interrogation room and failed to inform him he was free to leave).
People v. Lopez, 229 Ill. 2d 322, 892 N.E.2d 1047 (2008) (Police responded to a report of a burglary. Upon arrival, police found the victim's dead body on the living room floor. The name of the defendant, a 15-year-old male, surfaced while police were investigating the murder. When the police went to the defendant's apartment, his mother answered the door. The police told the defendant and his mother that the defendant had been implicated during a homicide investigation, and that they wanted to ask the defendant questions regarding the homicide at the police station. The defendant agreed to accompany the police to the police station. When the defendant arrived at the police station, he was immediately placed in an interview room and questioned for 20 minutes. The defendant was then told to wait in the interview room while the detectives conducted further investigation. The door to the interview room was shut, and the defendant was told to knock if he needed to use the restroom. The defendant remained in the interview room for four hours without being able to contact his family or any other person concerning his well-being. When the detectives returned, the defendant gave a statement implicating himself in the crime. The defendant was later convicted of first-degree murder. The defendant appealed his conviction, claiming that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence because he was unlawfully seized under the Fourth Amendment. HELD: The juvenile defendant was not seized, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, when he accompanied the police from his apartment to the police station for questioning. Here, police approached the defendant in his mother's presence. He agreed to accompany the police, and his mother did not protest. The defendant was aware that his presence was required at the police station because of the criminal investigation, and his decision to accompany the police was voluntary and not the result of coercion. However, the defendant's voluntary presence at the police station escalated into an improper seizure under the Fourth Amendment. After the initial interrogation by the detectives, the defendant was told to wait in the interview room as they conducted further investigation. During this time he was not taken out of the interview room, nor was he escorted to an open area. The defendant was not advised that he could leave, and believed that he was locked inside the interview room. A reasonable juvenile in the defendant's position would not have felt free to leave the police station. Under People v. Barlow, 273 Ill. App. 3d. 943, 654 N.E.2d 223 (1st Dist. 2005), a person who voluntarily agrees to submit to interrogation at a police station does not implicitly consent to remain at the police station while the police investigate the crime to obtain probable cause for the interviewee's arrest. Thus, the defendant's statement was deemed inadmissible).
People v. Williams, 164 Ill. 2d 1, 645 N.E.2d 844 (1994) (holding defendant was not under arrest at the time she arrived and remained in police station where she accompanied officer in plain clothes to the police station voluntarily in unmarked police car, officer's weapon was neither drawn nor visible, defendant at no time was handcuffed, booked, or fingerprinted, officer left defendant and her companion unattended in the middle of a large room at the station, defendant was read her Miranda rights, and detectives spoke with defendant briefly in a large room with an open door. Only after she made incriminating statement in response to questioning that provided police probable cause to arrest was she under arrest).
People v. Fair, 159 Ill. 2d 51, 636 N.E.2d 455 (1994) (holding defendant was not placed under arrest where police left word with defendant's friends and relatives that defendant should contact them, defendant voluntarily walked into the police station, officers searched him upon his entry merely as a precautionary measure for their own safety, defendant was not handcuffed, fingerprinted, or photographed, officers never told defendant that he was under arrest, officers read defendant his Miranda warnings, and officers conducted a relaxed interview with defendant for two hours. Also, the trial court properly excluded evidence of defendant's subjective belief as to whether he felt he was free to leave the police station).
People v. Townes, 91 Ill. 2d 32, 435 N.E.2d 103 (1982) (suppressing defendant's voluntary confession upon finding that it was the result of continuous station house questioning over a twelve-hour period during which no probable cause existed).
People v. Gutierrez, 2016 IL App (3d) 130619, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Defendant had been charged with two counts of first degree murder with codefendant Escutia based on an indictment that alleged that defendant and Escutia murdered the victim with a handgun. Defendant made a motion to suppress wherein he claimed any statements made while in police custody following his arrest should be suppressed as the product of an unlawful arrest. The following facts were adduced through testimony at a suppression hearing following defendant's motion. A Plainfield police officer testified that assisted in the investigation into the death of a homicide victim who was shot to death a gas station parking lot in Plainfield. When the officers identified the victim, they "ran his information" and learned that a person named Escutia had an order of protection against him. The officers then "ran the information" of Escutia and obtained a general address, believed to be in Plainfield and had a patrol car drive by Escutia's residence to see if her vehicle was parked outside. When a Plainfield officer drove by Escutia's residence, he did not observe her vehicle at that location. The officer then made "exigent circumstances requests" on the victim's and Escutia's cell phone numbers, which request included cell phone records from the phone company of Escutia's cell phone, including incoming and outgoing calls, cellular tower pings, texts, and voicemails. Thereafter, three Plainfield officers and several Kendall County officers met Secret Service agents at a police station in Chicago and drove around with the Secret Service agents for two to three hours while the agents tried to locate Escutia's cell phone. The Secret Service agents then learned that Escutia's alternative billing address was a residence in Chicago. At approximately 5:20 a.m., between six and ten officers, including several from the Chicago Police Department arrived at the residence of the alternative billing address. The Chicago officers went up to the front door and knocked with the Plainfield officers stationed behind them. A Chicago officer had a conversation in Spanish with the individual who answered the door while a female resident let the officers enter. One of the Chicago officers spoke with the female resident and filled out a permission-to-search form with her. Meanwhile, Escutia and defendant came out of a back bedroom, where they had been sleeping when the officers arrived. A Plainfield officer then asked defendant if he would come to the police station to answer some questions and defendant then said, "yeah, sure." Next, a Chicago police officer handed the Plainfield officer a cell phone and a 9-millimeter bullet that the officer found in a drawer in defendant's bedroom, whereupon the latter took possession of the items. While Escutia was transported to the Plainfield Police station, she told police she had shot the victim to death. Meanwhile, defendant waived his Miranda rights, answered police questions at the Plainfield police station and signed a written statement which contained admissions regarding his...
